South Central Jurisdiction: 207
Southeast Jurisdiction: 175
North Central Jurisdiction: 171
Northeastern Jurisdiction: 128
With a project this large these numbers are estimates. I based my initial visual evaluation on commonly used midcentury techniques like modern rooflines, breeze blocks, abstract stained glass, a lack of ornamentation, and ground plans popular in the International Style architectural movement. Vegetation was a more important predictor than I had initially thought. Mature trees and ivy growth gave insight into build dates.
My primary point of information was on the conference level of each jurisdiction, then the district level where I searched for congregation websites and physical addresses. This proved problematic because many UMCs do not have a web presence or, in some cases, the URL has expired. One church URL listed on an official UMC conference website linked to a Japanese porn site.
Against intuition, church websites are generally a poor place to look for large exterior photographs of their buildings so I went to Google Street View where results were mixed. Sometimes, I just had an address and found out that the Google Street View car hasn’t driven down that road yet.
The volume of UMC buildings in United States is staggering and makes this project more vast than I had imagined. For all I found, there were many I missed. Sometimes structures have changed denominations, some sit fallow, and in some cases churches have just disappeared. Wisconsin and Michigan proved the most problematic, the former having no comprehensive list of their churches (that I could find) and the latter going through a complicated redistricting. Texas was the most time consuming. Wyoming was quick. Midcentury in Alaska is almost nonexistent.
After identifying that a church might fall under the dates of my project, the next step was to reach out via email for more information. Most churches have email but a surprising number do not, or in many cases, the email bounces back. Numerous UMC websites do not provide an email addresses to the public but have anti-spam contact fields, which do not—in my experience—work well.
The message briefly outlines the project and asks two questions: 1) What year was your sanctuary dedicated? and 2) Are there any interesting architectural features? Some respondents gave one or two sentence answers and some sent pages of history. Some refer it to an “expert” whom I never hear from. While answers are useful, the most valuable aspect is the initial human contact, establishing a level of trust after which I ask for photographs and can dig deeper into the story of the building.
Of the congregations I have emailed (about 90% of the churches above), a small percentage from each jurisdiction have responded.
Western Jurisdiction: 11%
South Central Jurisdiction: 10%
Southeast Jurisdiction: 7%
North Central Jurisdiction: 8%
Northeastern Jurisdiction: 18%
The slight percentages could be for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the email was ignored or sent to an account that is active but not regularly checked. Perhaps the reader thought it was a scam or was uncomfortable giving out information to a stranger. My best guess is that pastors are overwhelmed with an avalanche of email and did not have the bandwidth to address non-essential questions.
I am in the midst of a second email campaign, this time targeting administrative assistants rather than pastors. After that I will begin cold calling. My target percentage is a 50% contact rate for each jurisdiction, concentrating on the most distinct, striking examples of architecture.
As you may have noticed, there is just a portion of the database on available on this website, comprised of churches whose sanctuary build date I have verified between 1945-1975. I will add content as it is confirmed.